Helen Thomas | It Is NOT Immoral To Be A Billionaire (6/8) | Oxford Union
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 сен 2019
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
The Motion: This House Believes It Is Immoral To Be A Billionaire.
Helen Thomas continues the case for the Opposition, as the sixth speaker of eight in the debate.
Having worked in financial markets for over 17 years, Thomas was an adviser to George Osborne during the financial crisis. She founded her own macroeconomic consulting firm, BlondeMoney, in 2017.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Watch the full debate here: ruclips.net/video/LieWDaAA-6I/видео.html
It's like she ignored everything that was said by the opposition and performed what she rehearsed.
The guy before her literally addressed most of her points.
I saw it and she made better points than him, he never made an argument, it was all moral grandstanding.
@@uzairakram899 If you think it was all moral groundstanding you clearly didn't take in what he said. But I'm guessing you actually did and you're just groundstanding for something other than morals lol
Either way, we'll let history and public decide ;)
@@DocRealTalk Are you referring to Anand's speech, yes he never made any argument.
@@uzairakram899 Lol...ok no problem ;)
@@uzairakram899 maybe learn English then
When she said, “now to my final point”, I asked myself what was her first point.
Avg Vet 😂 me too
Avg Vet 👏🏻😂
Hearing her speaking after Anand's speech was like hearing a toddler contradicting Socrates! Anand argues that it's wrong to have a system that allows some people to become billionaires, because it's almost always at the expense of powerless people. They get extra benefits (despite their wealth) that ordinary people don't. It's wrong to become a billionaire by creating a company and giving your workers breadcrumbs, in spite of them being the wheels that make the company move forward.
So yeah, having Brian collect the trash after the debate won't make him a good guy if he doesn't pay taxes, or if his employees, who are the ones that make him rich, are actually poor themselves
Brian is probably just using the "I'm collecting the trash" thing as an excuse to go looking for that £50 note. It's not much compared to his billions, but he wants it anyway, on principle. (The principle of his secret entitled greed.)
Didn’t help when certain government are also chipping away at what little power trade unions have left
She keep them poor
And she,s bathing in gold
And the gouvernment close their eyes for the right cut
Slavery will never end They just find new ways to enslave "legally"
Lmfao, the fact that you think poor people exist because billionaires exist it laughable. You socialists don't get how the economy works at all. He did nothing but morally grandstand, he couldn't actually explain how billionaires exist. All he could do is say billionaires do bad things. The reality is that they pay the most taxes, which pays for your welfare
@@user-he8rl4sm3k Obviously you read whatever you want. Who said that poor people exist because of billionaires?!?! The point is that it doesn't make sense that a man become a billionaire and those helping him achieve it get breadcrumbs. If billionaires paid better salaries then they would not be as rich but still rich enough, AND the employees would have better lives.
Also billionaires do whatever they can to avoid taxes, Bezos barely pays anything! And as to her point, one of the reasons billionaires do philanthropic work is because it helps them avoid paying higher taxes.
Again, please read the comment you're about to reply to before replying. And don't laugh your fucking ass off, you've only got one, and if you lose it the only place you'll be able to shit from will be your mouth, which is maybe why you said all that crap!
5mins in and I still don't understand what she's trying to get at...
sit down and shut up bitch.
Because shes trying to justify something immoral assuming we have morals 😂
290 People disagree 😁
She's talking about Brian who's a great guy, but also a billionaire...she's talking about health, oxygen, about not visiting our grandmother and about not giving blood.
In short: she's drunk.
basically if you were a billionaire you would do the same so its not immoral ,don't judge...
Which is idiotic.
This is the perfect example of why people with great auditory skills don't automatically have the greatest intellectual capabilities. She based her entire argument on some meaningless meandering hypothetical while looking and sounding like she actually understood her own nonsensical points. She's perfect for politics.
"It's not about the money...". Then they shouldn't mind giving 99% of their money away then if it's "not about the money". What pathetic drivel.
My sentiments exactly.
If you found a company that's is becoming really Succesful like say Microsoft why should you have to give up your controlling interest in that company?
Ask yourself which is better for the public, a billionaire that give away his money or a billionaire that invests his money.
Seriously, I immediately couldn't take her seriously about that. It is LITERALLY ALL ABOUT THE FUCKING MONEY. Resources. That's all human history has ever been about. Fuck.
Pathetic Drivel is correct, and this is an OXFORD audience????????????? And here I thought I wouldn't be smart enough to go to Oxford.................. 😄
1. Of all: HOW a billionaire got his/her billions? I argue there is NO way to get that rich morally.
2. BECAUSE somebody is a billionaire he naturally has a lot of influence - therefore more power and resources than tausends and tausends of the average people. BUT the power and decisions over their fate is not longer in the hands of the many but in the hand of ONE person who will decide what’s good or bad for the thousands! THIS, DEAR LADY, IS IMMORAL!
Lmao youre delusional. Billionaires exist because people voluntarily invest in their company or buy their product. It doesn't matter how much you tax them, that won't change
So this is Oxford's best? Either she's a horrible speaker or she knows she's lying.
She is a terrible speaker. But being a billionaire doesnt make you immoral. And people arguing for the motion are dumb
She just ignored everyone else and performed what she had rehearsed because the guy who came before her demolished everything she said.
Also obviously it makes you immortal if you have that much wealth accumulated. Being a nice guy on a personal level don't mean shit. Even emperors who killed millions to build an empire can be good to people on a personal level.
@@maverickspencer5581 Actually it does. "After nearly a decade researching this field, Piff has come to the controversial conclusion that being wealthy, rather than transforming you into a benevolent benefactor, can actually be rather bad for your moral fibre."
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31761576
@@maverickspencer5581 well, to be honest, money was NEVER relevant about this debate motion, they are debating about morality, and the previous guy's point was that:
-> if you are CAPABLE enough to make a change but you choose not to do it, it is immoral.
-> and this change affects the livelihoods of millions and millions of people at the self sacrifice of one
the debate is about whether if you are in that position, should you self-sacrifice? and note that self-sacrifice here means
- fixing a corrupted and flawed system that is SUPPOSED to tax people for their earnings?
- maybe paying their employees a bit more, which takes 1% out of their current billions?
- maybe stop falsely advertising which causes the death of thousands?
-> it just seems like a debate regarding money, cos that is the current situation, billionaires are those that are CAPABLE enough to make a change, but unwilling to self-sacrifice. IN ADDITION, several of them achieve billionaires status through loopholes and unlawful ways, but that is beside the point.
@@produdeyay if this was about fixing a corrupted system, the question could have been, should the wealthy be taxed, 70% or 90% or something like that.
The argument that there are loopholes for billionaires and they just get through that, is such a lame and farce argument, if there is a loophole, there is the loophole for every citizen to use, if they achieve the billionaire status. The elected representatives, are giving subsidies and loopholes, to boost business interest in their locality, so that they get rre elected again, but people are then told by these same politicians to blame the businessman and not the politicians who created the system and not holding the previous govt accountable for creating such systems
Having the power to do something and not doing it is immoral, this statement is such a load of crap. Immoral is doing something wrong, not when someone is billionaire and doesnt do things, that are to others liking(thats enforced morality) and if morality is enforced by state or the society, the it is not morality or good deed, it is just plain dead hopelessness.It is the privilege of the have to give charity to the have nots.
Classic display of elitism and privilege where morality and material conditions are mutually exclusive
No, they're not. You down own other people's shit. You need to learn how the world works instead of wanting others to take care of you. Poor people don't exist because billionaires do 🤦🏽♂️
@@user-he8rl4sm3k I pity ignorant blind people like you. Sad to see that even in this day and age with so much access to information we are still blind to the realities of exploitation which is the premise of hyper capitalism. Feel bad for you. Hope one day you are willing to open your eyes through educating yourself about how the world ACTUALLY works. What we owe to each other. The debt is stacking up.
I just lost 10 minutes of my life
listening to rich people talk is as dangerous for you as cigs. Each word they utter is 5 seconds off your life.
'The money is not actually relevant about this debate motion' You've heard it here guys ! sheesh !
well, to be honest, money was NEVER relevant about this debate motion, they are debating about morality, and the previous guy's point was that:
-> if you are CAPABLE enough to make a change but you choose not to do it, it is immoral.
-> and this change affects the livelihoods of millions and millions of people at the self sacrifice of one
the debate is about whether if you are in that position, should you self-sacrifice? and note that self-sacrifice here means
- fixing a corrupted and flawed system that is SUPPOSED to tax people for their earnings?
- maybe paying their employees a bit more, which takes 1% out of their current billions?
- maybe stop falsely advertising which causes the death of thousands?
-> it just seems like a debate regarding money, cos that is the current situation, billionaires are those that are CAPABLE enough to make a change, but unwilling to self-sacrifice. IN ADDITION, several of them achieve billionaires status through loopholes and unlawful ways, but that is beside the point.
Oh god it's the Tatcher's 'poverty is a moral failure' crap again isn't it.
Just because she alluded to that idea I now have to go all the way to England to go piss on Thatchers grave just to balance the universe out again. Thanks you dumb bitch, I was gonna have a pleasant weekend staying in.
The point is not that one has billions of dollars and that makes the person immoral, but the inmorality that one can have so much and not blink an eye when there is so much poverty in front of them.
Why is she wasting our time.
Do you not like listening to the opposition you fascist?
bcoz may be she looked beatiful in thumbnail
Because for a debate someone must argue each side.
What? There was no logical argument whatsoever?
I thought no one would applause . but again Oxford is rich kids fancy college.
Wait what? The Money is everything. It runs the world, and if you live in a world where people have none and you have a billion, its an abuse of resources, by basic morality. Being a billionaire doesn't make you a bad person, but hoarding that money is a bad thing.
Literally all of human history and all of the struggle we've had with each other over these past 10.000 years is about the fucking resources. Today we call that money. Literally everything is always about the money. She's just a dumb billionaire shill.
@@AliceDiableaux you are just a hypocrite..everything you have is from billioanaires
She has some good points but being a billionaire is not like a poor man that doesn't donate his blood. It would be more like if the poor man could save thousands of lives by spitting on the side of the blood drive bus but he doesn't do it because he might feel parched.
I found not one sound argument for the morality of one or a small number of individuals possessing a billion dollars in Ms. Thomas' talk. While billions of people live miserable lives that those billions of dollars can relieve. It is not the 'individuals' who are immoral if they are billionaires! It is the fact of a tiny number of pathologically rich people who do not care that billions starve and suffer.
Please. I know what I would do if I were a billionaire. I'd fund local economic development programs and work singlemindedly on uplifting those living in misery.
"It's your actions, and not the money that determine morality".
OMFG, you don't *get* the money *without* the actions. I don't need to listen to anymore of this speech.
Yea I didn't know becoming a billionaire is as easy as just being mean to people lmao. I thought it required I sell a product
Lord have mercy ... this is who speaks in the same room as Anand ..... my gosh .. this is not good.. what is she even saying
She's arguing about personal morality when it's not about that at all, it's about systemic flaws. The system should never have to rely on the good intentions of random people to function properly. The problem is that one person was allowed to accumulate that much obscene wealth. Huey Long's tax plan actually looks pretty stabilizing as time goes on. He was a famously corrupt man, but he was an example of building a good systemic plan with bad intentions, but remove the one man holding the reigns and make that a public department and you've got an incredibly stable system. Huey Long's plan was essentially to tax the poor nothing, tax the middle class almost nothing, tax everyone making over $5 million per year at 100% after their $5 million and first dollar. Tax estate inheritances at 50%. Anyway, it's no wonder why he was assassinated.
Ashes Mandalay how do you mean ‘allow’? At what amount should he be stripped of any extra?
She is clueless. She didn't understand a thing about the subject.
What is she rambling about... story time for the feeble minded.
just got off the phone with the broken swimming pool museum. they're interested in purchasing this video for their permanent collection.
what? what is she talking about?
The nonsense that you heard from this lady goes to show you how hard it is to defend something so obviously wrong and immoral. The arrogance to think that we all envy her because we all secretly desire to be her...
Talk about billionaires and leave out the money - what a load of crap!
"Having" is a form of doing. It is enforcing your power in the form of your ownership over the means to escape the crushing pain of poverty for millions, no billions of people. It's about power
I'm really confused about the point she's trying to make. So according to her, somehow, it doesn't matter how much money you have, how you made it, or how you use it. But her analogies and examples are just plain confusing.
This is a mind boggling amount of distraction. Money isn’t the issue when talking about a person who has a lot of money.... WTF!? She just spouts very poor analogies.
Never wasted such 10 mins in my life .....like i did today
lol she's living in Candyland. You can't ignore the facts.
What a waste of time. How did she even get invited ...
"Laughter?" "Good laughter?"
NO cringe laughter.
Knew it was going to be a horribly skewed, ramble when she mentioned that her “consulting business” was called “Blonde Money”. Tells you everything about the disgusting lack of self awareness to her life and perspective.
Yes it is immoral.
The billion mark is an indication of the well known and traveled immoral path it took to acquire that amount of wealth through tax evasion that directly defunds the public services the vast majority of people can not avoid paying into, using your wealth to monopolize the market you compete in, etc.
As to what to do with 50 pounds, depends on your current economic security. Billionaires are able to buy charity at an absurd rate and still not have their economic choices change. That is the difference.
"Billionaires actually have to work HARDER to reach their morality."
Oh those poor billionaires. Burdened by wealth.
Split the ownership of existing large companies, giving workers more than half the shares, and make all shares equal in worth, but allow only workers to vote on management and organization, as they are the true backbone and lifeblood of the companies.
Did she have a stroke before speaking Anand addressed everything ms Downton abbey was blathering about
"They would have to work even harder to get below the one billion dollar mark."
Or they could just, I don't know, pay their taxes.
Her point is clear. Morality is determined by what one does, not what one has.
How can someone be so bad at debating? Disappointing.
Name just one moral billionaire, please. I'll wait.
I think she missed the whole point of this debate. This debate is more about the overall idea of billionaire getting richer day by day and the system underlying it is unequally supporting them and pushing poor people to further poverty. It is not about the individual person but the whole capitalistic mode of production.
I think she was forced to debate on this point cuz it didn’t seem genuine, just a script. But Anand G was fantastic as always, love that guy
I'm at 5.05mins and I can't take much more! I'm out!
Only rich people say "It's not about the money" ...
Same woman who looked down to the floor it seemed the entire time the "other" side was speaking. 'nuff said.
a pity party for billionaires... "don't judge them!"
Fact: In a rare instance, no batsman of a team was able to score any run in a cricket match and the team lost by a massive 754 runs in a U-16 Harris Shield game here.
The game was played between Swami Vivekanand School and Children’s Welfare Centre School from suburban Andheri.
And it was the batsmen from the Children’s Welfare Centre School, who could not score even a single run, as all of them were dismissed for a duck (zero).The Swami Vivekanand International School, Borivali, one of the prestigious schools, had piled up 761-4 in 45 overs with their one down batsman Meet Mayekar remaining unbeaten on 338 off 134 balls with seven sixes and 56 fours. However, the batsmen from Welfare School succumbed to pressure and were unable to score a single run individually.
Note: This is a clear example of the consequences of inequality and the hoarding of resources that enable the flourishment of all.Imagine them competing for a job a few years down the line. The scenario I imagine is equally pathetic to this one.
Just a thought here, she keeps saying it's not about money, it's about choices. I open a business, have 10 loyal employees and become an overnight success. I now am a billionaire. Without my 10 loyal employees this would never had happened. I took the risk, put up the money my choice is do I keep the gross profits off the backs of the 10 and become One billionaire? Or do I create 11 millionaires? My choice is All about the money.
Did she just advertise her own company?
Worked in the City of London for 20 years trading currencies, pushing money around the system.
Huge contributor to society then I guess.
I felt like she represented the same arguments as Anand, but by looking at everything else than the main issue which is, that they hoarder too much of the economy's money, which then affects the rest of the economy. I'm no economy major but basic economy teachings tell us that the more money you have the more you should spend to make the money 'run back into the system'. So in a basic sense it is, as Anand says, so-called immoral to deviate from this model 🤷♀️
Oh and let's not forget she tried the 'envy' trick 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 seriously? Isn't that missing the whole point of this debate? Sure let's ignore the elephant in the room and adress the little mouse instead 😜
It depends how the money were gathered. He provided what others need. Deserve money back
The fact that 2/3 of the viewers of this video realized that her stupid argument was vacuous and unconvincing gives me hope for humanity.
I don't think it is necessarily immoral to be a billionaire, if the money in play acted simply to stimulate worker/family/solely owned businesses with needed capital if they have a good model and show promise or products that have strong demand. A democracy of the workplace, ownership and voting shares held by workers, but some outside money accepted to help grow the business, and a market looking to invest aided by those with the means to do so. Markets should primarily be for commodities, real items, and to add bouyancy to sound worker owned businesses.
Is this satire?
Nonsense.
If it were an equal system, then everyone should be judged equally. When our economic system is built to favor the billionaire, the billionaire should be held to the higher standard. Either way be a good human
Got it. If I don't give my blood away, even though I'm barely scrapping by nutritionally, I just as morally bankrupt as the billionaire who doesn't. It's logic!
I kinda want my 10 minutes and 16 Seconds back now smh
It would have been better for her intellectual integrity if she'd just have stood up and said "Sorry. I've got nothing". Better to be a quiet fool than to be a loud fool and remove all doubt, springs to mind.
It's not the resource that's the problem, It's what it took to amass the resource thats the problem.
You can't debate having 3 thousand times your fellow human being in wealth and give pittance to your again fellow people and expect alls well.
Sad world when this is up for debate.
WAY more than 3000x
Brian Kills Some person tomorrow morning to become rich so is he a bad person ?
Helen Thomas: no we cannot change our perspective
"The resources are being used up - fantastic!" Are you even listening to yourself?
For all the brains at Oxford you haven't figured out that simply uploading a single debate video will get you more views and will help you build an audience. See Joe Rogan +3 hour conversations -> single video, whatever you guys are doing is incredibly inconvenient.
I love how what we do and act is not related at all to money. Solid argument right there. Can't debate that
Finding $50 and deciding what to do with it has NOTHING to do with the choices billionaires make. Average people of lesser financial means would choose to do with it what their financial circumstances dictated. If one was poor, he/she would be a fool not to keep it. If one was financially comfortable, they might decide to give it to someone who needed it more. But billionaires are former multi-millionaires (they already had an obscene amount of money) making intentional choices to attain even more money. That is outright greed. And they do not work harder or smarter to attain their billions -- they simply game the system (that is already in their favor) to make even more. Billionaires might be moral and do good things in other aspects of their lives but the way they support and participate in a winner-take-all system that has been rigged on their behalf renders their other so-called moral actions a moot point. Our crony capitalist system is itself immoral, and unless billionaires -- and multi-millionaires too, for that matter -- acknowledge how immoral it is and engage in trying to transform it, then, yes, they are themselves immoral.
yea i suppose in a world where billionaires work at coffee shops then some of these arguments might make sense lmao
So she's implying we should ignore how Brian accumulated his wealth and solely judge him by what he actually pretending to be, that is very shortsighted but also unscrupulous if you ask me.
Isn't Brian perhaps pretending to be moral?
I get the feeling she's just delivering the speech she had prepared even when it has lost all it's relevance since the previous speaker obliterated her logic before she even got up to the podium.
damn Anand really did well
WTF IS SHE TALKING ABOUT AAAAAAHHHHHHH!
After i read Mariana Mazzucato “Value of everything”. Our economy of shits are not something to do with moral codes.
I'm sorry to say, she literally had no idea what exactly is money is. May not be a sufficient but it's a necessary source for having choices in life. I agree with the previous speaker, even though not completely but More than this woman.
Yes it boils down to envy....Genius!
It’s unfortunate that she would argue based on an ad hominem basis. The morality of one billionaire can neither define a class, excuse the methods of entry to that class, nor dismiss the ways in which the majority of the class use their class position
The last point was her best though - the concept that any individual being sufficiently moral to be an ideal billionaire is like a sword of damocles - your consumption habits will define the perceived moral value of billionaires at large. A nice gambit but one that would be hard to defeat an empiricist argument that would cause you to consider billionaires as a class and use it as a mode of what you are more likely to do
If the money isn't relevant then give some to me. It's relevant to me
It literally hurt my ears listening to her argument
moral systems differ as do economic systems. perhaps on a personal level a billionaire is mostly moral, it’s a system that allows for billionaires that is suspect in light of homelessness
Brian is imaginative - her debate was nowhere close to Anand Giridharadas's fact-based, reality oriented speech which actually applies to our world of Billionaires who intentionally or sometimes unintentionally chose to be immoral ! of course it doesn't depend on how much money you have but have you heard of people with too much money ruining our world with unfair unjust practices affecting people and environment.. mining consumerism monopoly black money banking scams Tax and Housing scams ... list goes on Ms. Helen Thomas
Somebody, please help! I'm lost! What is she talking about?
This was a very bad argument if I've ever seen one
"Muh choices!"
Oh god the ideology it burns
Brian could not have wealth by lobbying to have taxes raised, or by paying his employees more, or by philanthropy, or by investing in his business to grow it or hire more people. Being a billionaire means Brian took a big slice of the pie. That makes Brian immoral. He is a hoarder (a victim of addiction) at best, or he exemplifies greed (a deadly sin) at worst.
The first fucking Spider-Man movie from 2002 already addressed her point! "With great power comes great responsibility". Ugh.
Why was she invited to participate in this debate?
Ach....poor Helen lost the argument in the first minute against Anand's spectacular public speaking skills, but more tot he point, he made a convincing argument as to why plutocracy is dead in the water in this day and age...and Helen's poor counter-argument pretty much justified all his well-articulated points through mostly hot air. Hot air, in this case, being the sound of extreme privilege.
I feel a bit sorry for this woman. She was given an impossible task of defending enormous greed. It was impossible.
(7.3k × 10.19)+ min you wasted this much of minutes of who were watching this debate.
Huh? I'm undecided on this question...... but I have no idea what she just said? Can someone explain it to me?
What right does anyone hold over me to limit and steal my personal wealth and success. None 🤫
Does she realize you have to *do* things in order to get the money?
8:22 i was waiting for this.
I think I could've presented the case so much better
Dang I had to watch this like 3 times because every time I got distracted and didn't understand what her point was. Now I am pretty confident it was just incoherent rambling.